Talk:Mannatech

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

NPOV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's no denying that all facts listed in this article are from RSS, however reviewing this article in its entirety, by my count, there are 39 Negative Facts and 0 Complimentary facts?? There is no way this article does not violate NPOV? (Jimlaker66 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC))

And what is your relation to the topic in question?

Neutrality is not determined by counting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Note, their first edit in WP was filing this at NPOVN, an hour before they left the note above. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

So is this article representative of what Wikpedia has come to? i.e. Neutrality is a thing of the past?(Jimlaker66 (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)) Jimlaker66 (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC))

"NPOV" does not mean "fair and balanced", it means that content reflects what reliable, independent sources say. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please have the courtesy to thread your comments. See WP:INDENT. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Also per WP:TPG do not change your comments after others have replied to them. I changed your comment back to the version that was replied to. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Care you provide a positive fact, care to suggest an addition?Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Pubmed is a reliable secondary source for peer-reviewed, medical literature, is it not? (Jimlaker66 (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC))

Pubmed is a web-based index of the biomedical literature. It is not a source in itself. Many kinds of sources are indexed in pubmed. WP:MEDDEF describes the kinds of sources that are reliable for content about health in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of non-RS paragraphs

I have remove two paragraphs as WP:OR sourced to primary sources. They are below:

In November 2017, Mannatech was cited by the FDA for illegally marketing several of its supplement products as medicinal agents and for selling adulterated and misbranded products in violation of Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations and Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements regulations. In September 2005, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Mannatech for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act. The plaintiff class accused Mannatech of violating the act by "issuing a series of material misrepresentations"; specifically: failing to control its sales associates and allowing them to make false claims concerning the efficacy of Mannatech products. This caused a misleading price inflation of the company's stock. The plaintiffs were purchasers of Mannatech stock during the period August 10, 2004 through July 30, 2007.

The first paragraph was reverted in this edit with only an FDA document as a source. To show notability, we need a secondary source.

References

-- Perrythwi (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

There is fine sourcing for this. yes it needed improving. The edits are not good. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)